"In June, the ABA's Council of Legal Education revoked provisional accreditation from the University of La Verne College of Law, citing low bar passage rates. The school had held provisional accreditation since 2006."

I don't know if La Verne reduced their law school tuition to reflect their CBA accreditation. Whittier hasn't had promising GBX results either.

"Here's the problem, though. If your argument is that DL and various unaccredited schools are just as good at educating students as ABA schools, the one area where this demonstrably falls flat is on bar passage rates.

It's not enough just to say, "this education is every bit as good." Unless you can show it somehow, it's not unreasonable to dismiss such assertions.

Already, the unaccredited schools have a foot in the hole. They don't have the library facilities. Not sure what they do as far as classroom hours. So, a lot of things the ABA says are necessary for a good legal education are missing.

It is perfectly valid to counter, "Well, the ABA is wrong, those things are NOT required for a good legal education".

Trouble is, when time comes to take the bar, the ABA schools are in a completely different universe than the schools that claim to be "just as good."

Close that gap on bar passage rate, and I think an alternative accrediation body would have a very, very legitimate argument.

I think there's a lot of improvements that could be made. I think a large library is a great resource to the legal community and others who need access to legal research material. However, I think for the purposes of education, you could get everything you need via your laptop and you'd be just fine.

Ultimately, though, the argument for alternative accreditation standards should be, "it is just as good". Right now, at best, the argument is, "once in a while, an exceptionally bright person choses to get their legal education this way... that person is by far the exception."[/quote] - FalconJimmy

I actually have no problem with high standards for online/distance law school admission. I also think this would improve the bar passage rate and help improve the way this type of education is viewed. Perhaps, case studies of those students who have entered an online/distance law program AND have managed to come out licensed attorneys in the end, would help figure out what those standards should be.

Yawn. Yawn + 1 for my pal Falcon Jimmy. You make your argument well, but I'm beginning to think it's the only argument you know how to make. We get it-- you don't like digitally delivered law education. So, why do you bother to post here? No one else will let you play in their sandbox?

Yes, your aversion to anything that doesn't reinforce your fantasy is well documented and noted. However, others may not be quite as willing to embark on a likely frutiless endeavor if they have enough information. If it isn't for you, it isn't for you. Ignore it and live long and prosper.

But, the point is - it's NOT fruitless, people are graduating from DL schools, passing the bar, AND practicing law successfully. It's folks, like yourself, who refuse to accept that IT IS POSSIBLE and SHOULD be considered in the mix. As I have stated before, there should a set of standards for licensure – like the bar exam - but how one gets there to take the exam should not be dictated by one "sanctioned" entity, especially if the entity (ABA) recognizes DL classes for CE credits, however, refuses to recognize the same format in qualifying for the initial bar exam – sounds contradictory to me – either the format works, or it doesn’t.

But, the point is - it's NOT fruitless, people at graduating from Dl schools, passing the bar, AND practicing law successfully. It's folks like yourself who refuse to accept that IT IS POSSIBLE and SHOULD be considered in the mix. As I have stated before, there should a set of standards for licensure - like the bar exam - but how one gets there to take the exam should not be dictated by one "sanctioned" entity,

Exactly 100% correct, the bar exam makes the attorney not the JD, it really seems it is unconsitutional for a private guild to block access to the Judicial branch. The state bars are largely provincial tools of the ABA. DL attorneys, even only a handful, prove the point.

Have you ever tried to sue a large corporation in small claims or any other court and have them pop open a check book? They have insurance dude and the insurer has attorneys on retainer, it doesn't cost the corporation anything more than what they paid already and the insurer doesn't care either as long as they can teach someone not to mess with them, they don't care how much it costs to defend. I did sue Ford once, they settled only becuaue their insurance retained attorney missed the filing deadline and defaulted, the judge told them to go settle, otherwise I am sure they would have been only to glad to spin it out. Somehow I don't think you are a member of the plaintiffs' bar. Under your scenario we would all get rich slowly suing corporations in small claims court for a third of the take.

No, I have never sued a corporation, and no I am not a member of the plaintiffs' bar....defendants, yes. And no, everything isn't covered by insurance, as everything isn't a matter of products liability, a slip and fall, or something generally covered by insurance. Large corporations do have outside counsel for general litigation purposes that would not fall under insurance, and are subject to billable hours. And no, you are not going to get rich by suing a large corporation in small claims. The amouht of time and effort to get your $5k would be earned much faster by geting a real job. However, the costs for defending that law suit are very different.

Further, I still get the feeling you think most plaintiffs sue corporations for fun rather than because they have legitimate case. Vexatious litigants are quite rare since inmates had their access to federal court trimmed.

And what makes you think that veatious litigants are limited to inmates? That's your first faulty assumption. And no, they are not that rare (which I suppose comes down to what you define as rare). To be honest, I really don't know what motivates most folks to up and sue a corporation. I never bothered to ask a person why they feel they are entitled to $5000 just because some clerk was rude to them and refused to accept a return on a $500 item that they used and feel didn't live up to their expectations. I would expect them to offer that explanation in response to my motion to dismiss.

And I still don't get your argument about how DL schools lower standards, everyone still has to pass the same bar exam and in the end, passing the bar is all that counts and the difference between a law book salesman and an attorney unless you go to Harvard in which case you can become a law professor if you can't pass the bar.

A DL school is conferring a degree. A degree has meaning beyond merely granting the right to take the bar exam. You are earning an advanced degree. All academic institutions that confer degrees are accredited by some body. Either the institution granting that degree meets those criteria or not. It's not that DL schools lower the standard, they don't meet the standards for ABA accredidation. And that's fine. There are plenty of unaccredited institutions giving out various degrees out there. As long as the institution is honest about it, I see no problem with it. But the person getting that degree needs to be aware of the limitations that come with unaccredited degree. If that limitations includes the fact that most states won't recognize your degree, and won't let you practice law, that is those states' perrogative. You need to look no further than pass rates at non-ABA accredited schools to see that all law schools aren't created equal. And we're not even talking about the ability to produce good attorneys here. This is the rock bottom criteria. Pass the bar exam. Again, I see no problem with requiring law schools to maintain certain minimum standards. There are several hundered law schools who can do that, and when you hit the bottom of the barrel of those schools, even then, you're not always getting a quality education when compared to the amount of money invested.

[But, the point is - it's NOT fruitless, people are graduating from DL schools, passing the bar, AND practicing law successfully. It's folks, like yourself, who refuse to accept that IT IS POSSIBLE and SHOULD be considered in the mix. As I have stated before, there should a set of standards for licensure – like the bar exam - but how one gets there to take the exam should not be dictated by one "sanctioned" entity, especially if the entity (ABA) recognizes DL classes for CE credits, however, refuses to recognize the same format in qualifying for the initial bar exam – sounds contradictory to me – either the format works, or it doesn’t.

And there are people who pass the bar and practice law by reading the law. Should we do away with all education requirements? Point is, non-accredited schools, irrespective of whether DL or brick and motar, have much lower bar passage rates. So from this we can imply that you certainly are not getting the same level of education at ABA-accredited and non-accredited schools. So the fact is that these institutions are failing to produce graduates that regularly meet the bare minimum standard to practice law. Not even saying they produce reasonably good attorneys, but fail to meet the rock bottom criteria. If most graduates can't meet that rock bottom level of competence, why should a state give the graduates the privilege of even taking the exam?

But, the point is - it's NOT fruitless, people at graduating from Dl schools, passing the bar, AND practicing law successfully. It's folks like yourself who refuse to accept that IT IS POSSIBLE and SHOULD be considered in the mix. As I have stated before, there should a set of standards for licensure - like the bar exam - but how one gets there to take the exam should not be dictated by one "sanctioned" entity,

Exactly 100% correct, the bar exam makes the attorney not the JD, it really seems it is unconsitutional for a private guild to block access to the Judicial branch. The state bars are largely provincial tools of the ABA. DL attorneys, even only a handful, prove the point.

How exactly are you being blocked access to the Judicial branch? Everyone has access to the judiciary on a pro se basis.

How does it "seem" to be unconstitutional? From my memory, you have no property interest in any license granted by the state, so I'm curious as to what you base your claim of unconstitutionality. It is fully within a state's power to place a set of criteria for the professional licenses it grants, whether it be a barber or attorney.

[But, the point is - it's NOT fruitless, people are graduating from DL schools, passing the bar, AND practicing law successfully. It's folks, like yourself, who refuse to accept that IT IS POSSIBLE and SHOULD be considered in the mix. As I have stated before, there should a set of standards for licensure – like the bar exam - but how one gets there to take the exam should not be dictated by one "sanctioned" entity, especially if the entity (ABA) recognizes DL classes for CE credits, however, refuses to recognize the same format in qualifying for the initial bar exam – sounds contradictory to me – either the format works, or it doesn’t.

And there are people who pass the bar and practice law by reading the law. Should we do away with all education requirements? Point is, non-accredited schools, irrespective of whether DL or brick and motar, have much lower bar passage rates. So from this we can imply that you certainly are not getting the same level of education at ABA-accredited and non-accredited schools. So the fact is that these institutions are failing to produce graduates that regularly meet the bare minimum standard to practice law. Not even saying they produce reasonably good attorneys, but fail to meet the rock bottom criteria. If most graduates can't meet that rock bottom level of competence, why should a state give the graduates the privilege of even taking the exam?

So, using your explaination, for those students who graduate from a B&M/ABA school, but fail to pass the bar, that school ALSO "... fail to produce graduates that regularly meet the bare minimum standard to practice law." Therefore, those institutions who fail to produce reasonably good attorneys (graduates) that fail to meet the rock bottom criteria, the state should NOT give those graduates the privilege to even take the exam? On this question, I suspect there is No school that has a 100% pass rate exam after exam, so no school would qualify. Or, should there be a set percentage of bar passing students that determines which schools the state allows to take the bar? If so, who sets those standards? Who gets to say one student from a school who has a 80% bar pass rate is any better than another student from a school who has 30% bar pass rate? Should the latter student not be given the same opportunity to prove him/herself as the former?

But, the point is - it's NOT fruitless, people at graduating from Dl schools, passing the bar, AND practicing law successfully. It's folks like yourself who refuse to accept that IT IS POSSIBLE and SHOULD be considered in the mix. As I have stated before, there should a set of standards for licensure - like the bar exam - but how one gets there to take the exam should not be dictated by one "sanctioned" entity,

Exactly 100% correct, the bar exam makes the attorney not the JD, it really seems it is unconsitutional for a private guild to block access to the Judicial branch. The state bars are largely provincial tools of the ABA. DL attorneys, even only a handful, prove the point.

How exactly are you being blocked access to the Judicial branch? Everyone has access to the judiciary on a pro se basis.

How does it "seem" to be unconstitutional? From my memory, you have no property interest in any license granted by the state, so I'm curious as to what you base your claim of unconstitutionality. It is fully within a state's power to place a set of criteria for the professional licenses it grants, whether it be a barber or attorney.

[But, the point is - it's NOT fruitless, people are graduating from DL schools, passing the bar, AND practicing law successfully. It's folks, like yourself, who refuse to accept that IT IS POSSIBLE and SHOULD be considered in the mix. As I have stated before, there should a set of standards for licensure  like the bar exam - but how one gets there to take the exam should not be dictated by one "sanctioned" entity, especially if the entity (ABA) recognizes DL classes for CE credits, however, refuses to recognize the same format in qualifying for the initial bar exam  sounds contradictory to me  either the format works, or it doesnt.

And there are people who pass the bar and practice law by reading the law. Should we do away with all education requirements? Point is, non-accredited schools, irrespective of whether DL or brick and motar, have much lower bar passage rates. So from this we can imply that you certainly are not getting the same level of education at ABA-accredited and non-accredited schools. So the fact is that these institutions are failing to produce graduates that regularly meet the bare minimum standard to practice law. Not even saying they produce reasonably good attorneys, but fail to meet the rock bottom criteria. If most graduates can't meet that rock bottom level of competence, why should a state give the graduates the privilege of even taking the exam?

So, which is it - an entity outside the state sets the criteria, or the state sets it? Sounds like double talk, I may be wrong.

So, using your explaination, for those students who graduate from a B&M/ABA school, but fail to pass the bar, that school ALSO "... fail to produce graduates that regularly meet the bare minimum standard to practice law." Therefore, those institutions who fail to produce reasonably good attorneys (graduates) that fail to meet the rock bottom criteria, the state should NOT give those graduates the privilege to even that the exam? On this question, I suspect there is No school that has a 100% pass rate exam after exam, so no school would qualify. Or, should there be a set percentage of bar passing students that determines which schools the state allows to ake the bar? If so, who sets those standards? If says one student from a school who has a 80% bar pass rate is any better than another student from a school who has 30% bar pass rate? Should the latter student not be given the same opportunity to prove him/herself as the former?

In 2010 (the latest numbers available), graduates of ABA-accredited schools had a 74% passage rate across the country. Non ABA-accredited schools were at 25%. That 25% is broken down to a 28% passage rate at brick and motar schools, 19% from correspondence schools, and 17% at on-line schools. If you at least somewhere in the neighborhood, your protestations might have a point, but these schools are not even close. As to who sets the standards...well, pretty obviously the states do. Some let non-ABA accredited graduates take their bar exams (obviously since we have stats on them), others do not. The ABA takes bar passage into consideration as to which schools they accredit, but no state is required to go by what the ABA approves. Obviously if we're talking about a difference between 74% and 25%, students at any non-ABA accredited school are not getting the same education as their counterparts at the ABA-accredited school. Therefore I see is nothing irrational in a state treating them differently. As to whether the graduate should be given the same opportunity to prove them selves, I say it is up to the state, and I think there is nothing unreasonable about a state having a probition on graduates of non-ABA accredited schools. The proof is in the pudding. The quality of the graduating classes are not the same, so there is no reason they should be treated the same